Sunday, October 19, 2008

Below is another Austrian guest-essay, this one from Deep Roots, who comes to us via The Transatlantic Conservative. Here he outlines his suggestions for a Western cultural alternative to the UN and other transnational institutions.

A Western Allianceby Deep Roots

The following is a concept I’d like to present for discussion, which has been germinating in my mind for some time now: that of a political, military, economic and cultural community of interests among sovereign democratic Western nation states — if possible all democratic Western nations; the Western Alliance.

I’m well aware that such a concept cannot be realized under present political conditions.

UN, EU, NAU-in-the-making, Big Business, Big Bureaucracy, multiculti-mafia, NGO-istan — the whole political and economic establishment consisting of globalists, New World Order and transnational corporations would not like a development that runs against their interests like that. The representatives of global Islamic expansion — who are using multiculturalism as a “computer worm”, releasing their viruses on the Western nations’ hard drives — would dislike this as would the rest of the Third World, which would lose the West as their cash cow, should Westerners get rid of their “white-guilt syndrome” and start looking after their own interests again.

But let’s just imagine what such a “Western Alliance” could be like, continuing on a wider scale what NATO was for the Free World in the years of the Cold War.

A global community maintaining solely the interests of the West global would reduce the UN — this useless inflated and corrupt Third World Promotion Society, which would go broke soon anyway were it not for the dollars, kroner, pounds and euros of exactly those Westerners against whose interests this filthy mess constantly agitates — to the Circus of Pomposity it actually is.

A zone of free trade which actually bestows those economic benefits on the broad populace.

A friendship of Western peoples (i. e. essentially of European origin), preserving their identity and supporting each other in this.

What could something like this look like — following a “reboot” of our societies, after a renaissance of democracy whose development and preservation has cost us so much toil, suffering and sacrifices?

1) Principal structure of the Alliance:

An absolute basic principle would be the unrestricted sovereignty of the member nation states.- - - - - - - - -There must not be any supranational instance to interfere with the jurisdiction of the member nations. No “Parliament of the Alliance”, no “Alliance Commission”, no equivalent to the European Court. Any implementation — even later — must be excluded as a matter of principle and furthermore would mean incompatibility with any membership in UN or EU (if still extant outside the Alliance) or any comparable institution as well as in WTO (with which there could eventually exist some economic agreements).

Likewise excluded would be a membership of NATO, should it still exist anyway. For the remainder of NATO, consisting of countries remaining outside the Alliance for the time being, must be assumed to be under the influence of transnationalists or even of Muslim subversion which aims to include their countries of origin (Turkey, anyone?).

At best there could be at best a cautious basic relationship with NATO, one that could be revised at any time.

Only certain terms in the Charter of the Alliance would have influence on national law with respect to the inner constitutions of the member states, in that these terms would be preconditions for the worthiness of a state to join the Alliance. The obligation to observe these terms would come into force with the ratification of the accession treaty:

Democracy, the rule of law — with the exclusion of socialism, due to its tendencies to endanger democracy.

Any further unity or unanimousness that is not possible without a supranational legal instance is not worth sacrificing national self-determination.

Of course the member nations can peek over each other’s shoulders or into each other’s pots to adopt laws worth of imitation into national legislation (unmodified or adapted to domestic circumstances) — which could also be altered anytime according to the countries’ own judgement.

This in turn should lead to a more or less extensive harmonization of legislation within the Alliance, as far as it is useful for economy and transportation.

There would be no “capital” of the Alliance. Everyday affairs among member nations would be handled via their upgraded embassies, more important bilateral questions would be managed in the course of diplomatic visits (delegations of experts, ministerial talks or full-blown state visits), and for matters concerning several nations or the Alliance as a whole there would be regular major conferences in varying capitals.

Within this framework decisions would also be made concerning exterior relations of the Alliance — economic ones as well as those concerning security matters, with each nation bearing only the costs of its own participation as well as a proportional share of the host nation’s extra expenses.

One could call this a “grassroots system among states”.

No payments would be made by member nations to a central regime, as this wouldn’t exist — no net payers or recipients. Each partner nation would continue to administer its own financial affairs within its own in complete sovereignty, being answerable only to its own citizens.

This Western Alliance should not be a prison of peoples like the EU, from which there is no practical escape after joining (or being coerced). However, the partner nations should be able to rely on a certain amount of continuity, and would need the following rules concerning membership:

Membership would only be possible based on a free and secret referendum after its application has been examined by the Alliance as well as its worthiness for joining.

One might also consider the necessity of referenda within the existing member states regarding the acceptance of the new would-be member. This continual voting would naturally become more and more complicated with growing membership and to simplify matters, as no financial or other burdens for the existing members would arise from the accession of a new one A unanimous resolution by a special conference of all members’ governments should suffice.

These governments would represent the interests of their own citizens only (something that cannot be said of the EU’s satrap regimes), fully dependant on them for their re-election.

To avoid cultural incompatibilities there could be a list of desirable potential member nations as an amendment to the Founding Charter of the Alliance; by its referendum each accessing nation would also accept this list. Any expansion of the Alliance to include other countries than these would require referenda in all nations of the Alliance.

Membership would be at first limited to a period of five years after which another referendum would be mandatory. Should a majority not be found for remaining within the Alliance, then membership would expire automatically; otherwise it would become unlimited.

As mentioned before each member state of the Alliance is a free nation and can also leave it again. But to keep a certain reliability and continuity and to allow the other members to adapt to the change, each leaving member would have to give two to three years notice (here a consensus about a reasonable span would have to be agreed upon when founding the Alliance).

To counteract fickle behaviour (member in good times, quick to leave with troubles ahead and re-join soon after the problems are gone) graduated periods of disallowance for the re-accession of a country that has left the Alliance would have to be prescribed.

For example: five years wait after the first withdrawal; if a country were to leave again after this, then it would be seven years; and after a third withdrawal a country would have to wait for ten years before it would be allowed to join again. An “eternal ban” after another exit would not seem proper to me, for the prevalent attitude of a people may change over generations, and one should not punish later generations for the fickleness of the present one.

2) The community of interest which is the Western Alliance comprises the following dimensions:

a) The Political Dimension:

The member nations support each other on the world’s political stage and reject every political initiative — be it from the UN, other transnational organizations, or individual countries — directed against the Alliance or even against one of its members. Apart from diplomatic intervention economic pressure can also be applied in certain cases, and military pressure is also not excluded, if needed.

Furthermore, the members via their embassies provide diplomatic representation of Alliance partners in states where these do not maintain embassies of their own.

b) The Military Dimension:

The Western Alliance is a defence community the will respond to military threats against one or several of its partner nations by massive counter-pressure and rolling back any aggression against one of its members most severely. Even in case of “low intensity conflicts” involving “partisans” or “underground combatants” infiltrating the territory of an Alliance member from neighbouring countries the Alliance will take military action against their country of origin. In this there are no “out of area”-restrictions — the Alliance’s force projection includes the whole world.

And there is also no upper limit to the scale of the applied military force — if an aggressor cannot be defeated by minimal force then total war including nuclear weapons is not off-limits.

The share of smaller members without armed forces of long-range capability could consist in reinforcing their bigger neighbours’ home defence (thus “watching their six” and enabling them to detach a greater portion of their forces to the battlefields).

c) The Economic Dimension:

The Western Alliance is a zone of free trade without any customs or other trade barriers between its members. Nevertheless the legislation of the member states is free to ban the sale of certain products within their territory, be it for reasons of safety, health or environment protection, as long as it is a general ban not directed against one or several other members.

The member states remain free to decide how to arrange their commercial relations to non-members which are friendly or at least neutral towards the Alliance.

The Alliance reserves the right to economic and legal sanctions against non-members conducting dishonest business practices (e.g. China and its continuous disregard of Western firms’ copyrights).

Likewise customs barriers are to be imposed on countries whose authoritarian systems and their corrupt elites force their population to accept wage levels which Western employees cannot be expected to compete with (e.g. the former Soviet Union dumping export prices to gain foreign currency at its population’s expense).

And on hostile countries the Alliance will put trade embargos, thus waging a Cold War on economic level.

d) The Cultural Dimension:

The partner nations of the Western Alliance protect and cherish their own cultural identity.

They reject cultural relativism as well as any “blame whitey” tendencies, and defend their common cultural heritage against outsiders.

3) Who may join the Western Alliance?

At first I’ll insert my explanations concerning the term “Western”:

Of course I’m aware that on a globe like Earth terms such as “west” and “east” (unlike “north” and “south”) are not absolute and that China, for example, is closer to America in the western direction than in the eastern. But if you look at Earth’s land hemisphere, i. e. the part without the Pacific Ocean, then the countries of European-based civilization are located mostly on its “western quadrant”; therefore the term “Western” is by all means proper.

All “Western” countries worthy of accession; that is, all that have an predominantly European ethnic identity or a cultural affinity to the same, insofar as they fulfill the political preconditions mentioned in 1).

Geographically speaking this would mean:

a)

Europe including Iceland, with the exception of Russia, which does not regard itself as “Western”

b)

Israel as well as (if extant in the future) states of the Christian Orient after being liberated from Muslim influence (e. g. Lebanon, “Assyria”, a Coptic “Core Egypt”, a Nestorian state on the Persian Gulf)

c)

North America (USA, Canada, the Bahamas, Bermuda)

d)

In South America, only the “white” states of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay (no indio states)

e)

Australia and New Zealand

f)

A “white” Namibia and a “White South Africa” after political/territorial separation from black ethnics

Furthermore, an associated membership or privileged partnership is possible for smaller countries of non-western identity who see themselves and their interests better respected by us than by anyone else, as far as they fulfill the political preconditions and also (first and foremost!) if this is advantageous for the Western Alliance.

It is not impossible that this status can eventually develop towards full membership after some generations — according to the social/cultural development of the country in question.

Examples for this would be the island nations of the Pacific Ocean, Singapore or some states of the Caribbean.

Agreements could be made with important non-western countries like Japan, (South) Korea or Russia for the purpose of restraining Chinese hegemonic ambitions or Islamic expansion.

4) Even a journey of a thousand miles…

…begins with a single step. As mentioned in the introduction, the present political, social, and MSM establishment is strictly opposed to the realization of such a community. But even given genuine democratic governments something like that is only possible if there is a popular will and a mental base for it. To this goal each of us can contribute in some sort of grassroots dimension on private level.

There are many possibilities for this:

One could take part in cultural meetings, be it as an individual or as a member of a culture club organizing such events.

One could create personal contacts with people from neighbouring countries.

On a journey through foreign countries or when encountering visitors one could act according to the motto: “each individual an ambassador of his country”.

And for all this foreign languages are useful — how about refreshing existing skills or beginning to learn a new language, which would come in handy when travelling in one or another country?

Finally one can further consciousness in the sense of this idea during private talks, based on facts and in non-obtrusive manner. For example, one can defend the principle of the nation state and one’s people’s right to democratic self-determination and by refusing the legitimacy of supra-national legislation as well as any burden of guilt in reference to which Third Worlders constantly justify their claims of entitlement.

And if enough of us want it, then maybe someday it will not be merely a dream anymore.

“Car l’alliance d’occident — aujourd’hui,ca commence avec toi!”

Post scriptum:

I’ve been thinking about this concept for some time now.

The basic idea first occurred to me when reading Samuel Huntington’s A Clash of Civilizations — especially the part where he describes how the UN develops more and more towards an organization hostile towards the West, being more and more utilized by non-Westerners for enforcing their interests at our expense; how they unite despite their other differences as soon as they can oppose our interests, and how we will have to bid farewell to our notion of being able to enforce our ideas of democracy and human rights worldwide in the future.

I thought to myself: “What the hell are we still doing in this useless outfit? And what would they do without us? How about an inside group oriented solely towards the West’s interests, as an alternative to the UN?”

At first I imagined only some sort of modern version of Tolkien’s “White Council of Rivendell”, a mere forum for us Westerners, where we could communicate about cooperation and standing together against non-Westerners.

Eventually this idea developed towards an outright alliance, influenced by many insights I’ve gained from learning about the EU, transnationalism, Islam, Political Correctness, etc. Our conservative section of the blogosphere was very valuable in this (Fjordman comes to mind!), and without blogs like Politically Incorrect, Acht der Schwerter (both in German) and Gates of Vienna I might not have come this far.

An invitation by the German blogger Eisvogel (who runs “Acht der Schwerter”) to write a guest essay for her blog prompted me to finally write down the concept, and here we are…!

I am well aware that in its present form this can only be a basic preliminary concept, containing lots of things I did not consider, flaws originating in a lack of knowledge or experience on my part.

Therefore I am looking forward to discussing it with you.

Nautically speaking: This is going to be a “shakedown cruise” of S.S. “Atlantica”; one can also compare it with the practice of “angles and dangles” executed by American submarine captains at the beginning of a long underwater patrol, consisting of a series of manoeuvres to reveal anything that is still loose, rattles or makes other noises.

35
comments:

I have long favored the creation of an "Alliance of the Anglosphere". Proposed members, US, UK, Canada, Australia, Israel and surprise, India. I think India, poor as it is, is a better fit in this group than France or Germany. As for the UN, kick it out of NY and sent it to the Sudan. We should dissolve NATO while we're making big changes.

Chipping on the prevalent terminology costs very little and teaches working with other concepts.

EU terminology dictates for ex. a notion that if you promote EU policies you are "proEuropean".

This joke of words implies that large quantity of indigenous Europeans are nonEuropean or antiEuropean...truely orwellian newspeak. We could easily create an "European CULTURAL Union" with a special demand for European studies and research (not accepting members like France for their fundamental ignorance of European issues and interests and voicing our concern about the French meddling with some Arab Mediterranian trap against our will. Even Germany was shocked by this foolish French project).

It seems also that "little" European countries are more flexible and more concerned about their freedom. Simply self-centred.

It would be wise to work on this feature. We do not suffer under some post-Bismarck or post-Napoleon psychological posttraumatic disorder. It is exactly this obligatory admiration for Bismarck and Napoleon/French revolution which makes them blind and deaf and makes them feel the EU project is just a logical smooth extensionof those ruthless "Europeans".

Bismarck created modern Germans. And they lost lot of their identity. Same for France. Now we have leftists inventing an anti-identity which claims to be universal. It is clearly not.

In essence it is very similar to the islamic adoption of an unsatisfyable ersatz anti-identity.

Cut the referenda and all the democracy. Who cares??? Only three conditions must aply:

1st) The membership is only possible by invitation. Invitation is only possible under "free" agreement of all the independent Nations and States who belong to the Alliance.

2nd) A condition for any State to join would be that that State would have to be overwhelming white, or at least half white. The State would also have to present proves that it is based on European Traditions and Culture.

3rd) No State could aply if it was ruled by anti-European elites. Exs. Socialists, Communists, Democrats :), Multiculturalists, etc.

-------------------------------

Concerning the languages... what the hell? We should all speak the language who more resembles true Europe, which also happens to be the language of God: Latin! But... once that language does not exist and we cannot speak one of its varieties without offending Italians, Spaniards or Portuguese... Once the French simple do not diserve that high status, once German is too centralised...All we can do is to speak English! That is not even a problem. English to lingua franca! Those bloody English disearve it.

----------------------------------

Well, your list of who's in and who's out is SICK!!! Really, it is so sick it disgusted me.

My list:a) All Europe except Bosnia (at least the muslim half), Turkey, Albania, Kosovo and any other anti-European State that may arise in Europe. Just look out to Sandjak...b) For those who have doubts: Russia! It is not "whatever you coin as Western" but it is undoubtedly European.c) North America: United States and Canada.d) Oceania: Australia and New Zeland.e) Latin America: Argentina and Uruguay.I must say that I would wellcome other States, namely, Brazil and Chile that have a substantial European population and culture.

I then have a list of States who could enter the Alliance if it were created now:a) Colombia. 20% European but where European culture strives, a Nation based on European culture.b) Mexico. 10% European but based on European culture. That would prevent an hostile Latin American strong state to border America.c) Israel. So that we are not considered Anti-Semites :)d) Cuba. After Castro. According to Cuba's statistics, Cuba is 65% European and before Castro it was a majority European State based in almost purely Spanish-Castillan culture.e) Small Nations in the Caribean Sea where I may like to spent vacations in :)f) Costa Rica. People say it is a majority European State.g) Panama. 10% European, based on European Culture, not at all anti European.If this states enter the alliance. I think they should not be considered full members.

Now me criticising your list fast: Russia is not Western but it is European. Russians consider themselves Europeans or not in the same way the British do it;Other Christian States in the Middle East should not be aloud to join simply because they are not Europeans. If you accept them, you'll have to accept Congo, Mexico and Timor. They are all Christian as well. Besides, Lebanon was once European, they chosed their destiny;No Indio States you say? Meanwhile, you wellcome Arab Christian States. Racist... just because Arabs are Caucasian... Meanwhile, Mexico has a European component "Assyria" could only dream of. The core of Brazil, the South and Southeastern States account to 80% of the Nation's GDP are more than 50% white and there are States as white as Argentina, as there are States richer than Argentina... Only in those States are some 60 million Europeans according to the statistics. If you go to "the right places" in Rio, it will not look too diferent from London, Paris or Lisbon, I've been told;No African States at all. There is no white State. South African whites are only 10%. South Africa is anti European to its core.

--------------------------------

Of course I agree with you! Bring it up! I have camed to this same idea myself, I only think it has been the Natural thing across European History.I KNOW something very close to this will be created in the future, if there will be Europeans in the future, that is. I only think the whole democratic process is 1) an interference in National matters of the Nation States and 2) not needed. You cannot implement this from below. This has to be constructed from the top down: Let the people be worried about their Nations and problems. It is the function of the elite to "find alliances".

I have told people here, I think Conservative Swede, that this should be the goal of NATO. I defend that we should turn NATO in "the Alliance". It is needed.

Tony Blair recent stated in the Daily Show: "Untill this day, no war has ever broke between two democratic States".

And as so you get it. The irrational idolatration of democracy goes this far. Nevermind that the democratic NATO bombed went to war with Serbia without asking their people if they should went to war with them? Nevermind that Milosevic was democratically elected...

Nevermind that the democratic United States is the State that "starts" more wars in the planet.

Nevermind that Germany went so low as to find Adolf Hitler due to the stupidity of democracy.

Democracy is good, when it works. The problem is that the EU elite, in a fashion not unlike the US elite, has dismantled core functionality in democracy and moved to a situation where the elite indoctrinates the masses with a limited set of choices that invariably leads to more power being transferred to - the elite.

The whole EU system works like that, as does the financial crisis and the 'bailouts'.

Seems to me, the problem is, that "democracy", the way it is defined in our day, DOES WORK FLAWLESSLY in Europe!

Right now, the votes of the majority are being BOUGHT by financing the unproductive part of the population through the extremely high taxation of the PRODUCTIVE part of the population. ALL TRADITIONAL PARTIES in Europe work that way, be they "christian democrat", "social democrat", "liberal democrat" or "green"!

The only way out of this will be something akin to the American Revolution, when a group of courageous, intelligent and freedom-loving MEN acted OUTSIDE THE LAW AND AGAINST THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY, to defeat the then mightiest Nation, the mightiest army and the mightiest Navy of the world.

IT CAN BE DONE!

After the war we will have to cut government to its TWO TASKS: Defense of the national borders and upholding law and order inside the country.

Everything else is none of the governments effing business!

And the right to vote will be in the hands of the productive members of society!

If all does not go so well there is also the "Jewish option" -- the creation of an ethno-state, like Israel, only western. Kevin MacDonald mentions this.

This state will be dedicated to preserve western culture and western ethnicity, keeping it alive during the coming age of darkness. We can perhaps learn something from Israel's success in partly achieving this.

So what is a good place? Ireland? Denmark? New England? Western Australia? Just throwing out ideas here!

Of course I hope it doesn't have to go that far but it is something to at least consider for the future.

The "West" is wherever European civilization predominates. European civilization predominates wherever Europeans make up a majority of the population. Therefore the West includes all of Europe, Russia, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Uruguay. It does not include Turkey, Mexico, South Africa, Japan or Israel.

The terms Westerner, European and white are virtually interchangeable. Westerners share a common European heritage, and in most cases (but not all) they are Caucasian in race, Indo-European in language, and Christian in religion. Each of these three classifications are in turn roughly divided into three main subgroups: Nordic-Germanic-Protestant in northern Europe, Mediterranean-Latin-Catholic in southern Europe, and Alpine-Slavic-Orthodox in eastern Europe.

The intellectual heritage of the West stems from ancient Greece and Rome, and the moral traditions from ancient Jerusalem. The West began defining itself against the East at least 2500 years ago in the Greco-Persian wars. The West, Europe and Greece became synonymous with freedom, while the East, Persia and Asia represented slavery. Today we contrast liberal democratic capitalism with Islam and Sharia law.

The closest institution we have to representing the West as a whole is NATO. NATO ensures that the US and Europe remain militarily allied together, so it's one of the few transnational bodies worth keeping. The problem with NATO is that Turkey is included and Russia is excluded, going against our pan-Western civilizational interests. Kicking Turkey out and welcoming Russia in would create a NATO covering the northern third of the world. The "North" might replace the "West" as shorthand for where Europeans/whites are the majority population.

The European Union could either be folded or expanded to include Russia and North America in a much weakened form. A North Atlantic Union could become the premier political-economic-military alliance of the 21st century. It should also include Australia and New Zealand, but no nations from Latin America, Africa or Asia. Ideally there would be free movement of people and goods within the alliance, but strict immigration barriers and high tarrifs with the rest of the world.

A divided West will likely splinter into a Hispanic-dominated Western Hemisphere and a Muslim-dominated Euro-Arab zone. Only by uniting and stopping mass Third World immigration can European civilization realistically survive into the 22nd century. The first step is inviting Russia into NATO and kicking Turkey out. The next step is stopping virtually all immigration from south of a line stretching from the Rio Grande to Gibraltar to Vladivostok to San Diego. Only then will the billion or so Westerners survive as the majority group in their homelands.

Henrik, seriously, I do not want to be disrespectfull so, forgive me if I cross the line but I don't know exactly how to say this.

TC is right when he says "the problem is, that "democracy", the way it is defined in our day, DOES WORK FLAWLESSLY in Europe!"

How can you want democracy back? You have democracy. The European Union got to where it is in a more or less democratic way (we elected people who protect and sherish it).Democracy is like prostitution to the average guy here: The people will tend to vote in those who give them more... democracy makes people literally sell themselves (prostitution).

Deomcracy does not cultivate high vallues.

In democracy all men vallue the same. You have to be a radical optimist to believe that all men pursuit high vallues or that all men have the same vallue.

Democracy replaces the "government of the best" and puts those who have gathered more support in the rulling position.

What is democracy? The festival of the oportunists. Our elites do not see their people/Nation as something to be taken care of, to be built and improoved, they see it as the people they must please to be on top. I do not like that.

In democracy you have many people on the left whose objective is the destruction of their Nation/People. Why even give them a spotlight?

Even the right wing parties - Nationalist or otherwise - are not here to "built". All the parties, instead of cooperating and working together, get antagonic propositions so that they can get the support of the descontent people.

They fight over each other to stay in power, not for the benefit of the Nation. And as such they have no respect for the Nation.

This is why I am indeed an anti-democratic person. I think that democracy is only apt to Nations whose Traditions are based on democracy, namely Switzerland and the United States. I do not know others.

Now imagine a Denmark where only the best people (of caracther, intentions and capacity) were to go to the pairlament. Imagine they go there, not to fight each other, but to achieve a consensus on what is best for the People/Nation. Imagine that.

I must say that what I have in mind is probabily too exclusive to Portugal (that's on what I've based my all conclusions, the only reality I truly know) but I have it all planed already and here I can say: If He has the good education I suspect He's recieving, if He can be influenced by ideas like mine sometime in the future I have already someone to be the encarnation of the Nation, The first boy, blonde with glases.

This is the only person whose personality cult we can acept: The King of the Nation.

You may laugh at my absolutist monarchic view but, what is best, to have what I asked you to imagine and an uncontested leader for life whose Nation will be his legacy to his own son? Or a bunch of new rich peasents fighting without mercy against each othe without any sense of vallue just to be on top?

Really, just imagine. You may say I'm a dreamer... But I'm not the only one,I hope someday you join us...

"A divided West will likely splinter into a Hispanic-dominated Western Hemisphere and a Muslim-dominated Euro-Arab zone."

Yes, this is very important. My comments here were of a fantastical world, where every women is a princess and all men kills dragons. Reality is different.

In reality what you said is happening. We have thus to Wests: The New World and the Old World.

In the Old World, nothing new, we have the same problems ever: Arabs and Muslims everywhere and the Yellow Danger which is represented in our DNA by the savage Huns and Mongols.

But now we complicated all that by allowing them to settle and reproduce in our Nations. And, because we have lost 80% of our ethics, sometimes, we even alow them to take our women. So, virtually all the non whites and muslims (by white I mean people of European descent and not Caucasians in general) have become our (potential) enemies here because they will destroy us weather consciously or not.We have to get ridd of multiculturalism and soon. Probabily we will do this under a horrible and violent massive civil war across Europe.

In the New World it is different. "Paleo Bolivarianism" is the main enemy, not multiculturalism. "Paleo-Bolivarianism" is a mixture of leftist ideas with anti-white non-white Nationalisms. Usually, the Bolivarian leaders are charismatic and atract millions to them; once they are in power, they work to change the country for ever and to be sure that the people start to see "Europe" as something foreign and not proper of them. In the New World the following States have fallen to "Paleo-Bolivarianism":

Other States, like Canada , New Zealand are already changed forever but have not felt tottaly;

Cuba may rise after Communism, but I doubt it; Northern Brazil have already fallen and the fight is now being waged in the minds of South and Southeastern Brazilians. There are no right wing parties in Brazil to fight this; Colombia will undoubtedly fall, the pressure is too great and democracy does not help; In Chile a war of minds is being waged like in Brazil...

Mexico, as long as the Americans financiate this Mexican elite, La Razza will have more supporters in the U.S. than in the rest of the Americas;

In all the other Nations, multiculturalism is advanced as a troyan horse for "Paleo-Bolivarianism". In America, maybe Obama is the "Paleo-Bolivarianist" on service. If America falls, Canada will not stand alone. Argentina and Australia will be the baluarts of European Civilisation, but it will not take too long until they are drawned in an hostile see when America is not there to police the world any more. Chavez will be laughing.

In the future, Europeans (Russia included) will have to worry if America will bomb them or if America will tolerate them. I don't see NATO surviving if Obama gets a second mandate. It's a dark future.

By the way, all those Americans who say: "Europe is doomed"... poor ignorants...

People who will forget their Civilisation:United States - 225 million people (is this even possible? A State-Nation with more than 200 million Europeans to elect a Bolivarisnist whose desire is to destroy European Civilisation?);Brasil - 60 to 95 million people;Argentina - 36 million people (thet will give a fight);Canada - 25 million people;Australia - 19 million people (they will give a fight);Mexico - 10 million people;Colombia - 9 million people;Cuba - 7 million people;Chile - 6 million people;

Deep Roots suggests a Western Union; the same sort of creature as the European Union, only much bigger. Already that should make people pause and have second thoughts.

And what's with the admitting Arab Christians, but e.g. not Peruvians?

The general approach here is the attempt to cut out the "good" nations with a jigsaw and make a strong union of them. E.g. Russia is not considered "good" for this purpose, and is excluded and will become more excluded than today. Instead of having one strong jigsawed union, the West (and the world) will be stronger by having several alliances, some of which include Russia, some of which don't. And there should be at least one international organization including China. That is the robust and practical solution (compare e.g. with the ARPA-net). The solution presented by Deep Roots, which is a very common idea, is too ideological and too vulnerable, and of course in most respects just a giga-EU.

I agree with people here that we need a reform so that the UN, as it is today, should be thrown into insignificance. However, a United Democratic Union is hardly the way. Under the label of "democratic" the Westerners will continue to do all the wrong things, drunken on the Fukuyama delusion of "liberal democracy" as the end of history. It's a inappropriate criterion for deciding who should be admitted, since it will give us Turkey but not Singapore. And it would admit Iraq before Russia.

Democratism is the Bolshevism of our time. It's hyper-ideological, it lives a life of its own and people are fools if they think they can control its meaning and definition. "Democracy is good, when it works" says Henrik. But the democracy we look back at as working was rather a Republic with democratic influences. Today democratism has swamped our republics into something that the post-modern generation, ironically enough, have no better word for describing then "un-democratic". I would rather call it arrogantly Rousseauean.

I'd say: root out democratism out of our republics, and they would work again. Democratism itself can never be made to work.

The intellectual heritage of the West stems from ancient Greece and Rome, and the moral traditions from ancient Jerusalem. The West began defining itself against the East at least 2500 years ago in the Greco-Persian wars. The West, Europe and Greece became synonymous with freedom, while the East, Persia and Asia represented slavery. Today we contrast liberal democratic capitalism with Islam and Sharia law.

There are many definitions of The West. And the dominant one is based on Western Christianity as opposed to the Orthodox Christianity (as well as the rest of the world). So even if I would prefer to definition of The West as you describe above, neither you or I can change what it has come to mean today. Therefore I use the terms European or white to describe what you refer to above, i.e. all variants and stages of European civilization: Western Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, as well as the Greco-Roman civilization. Quite as you, I embrace all of that, and it's not we stop the ideological wars (drunken on the Enlightenment) against e.g. Russia and ancient Rome that we will get this act together.

Certain words will just lead us wrong, such as "Western" and "democracy". Quite as "socialism" and "liberalism" they are beyond repair, and using them as identity formative slogans will only result in the triumph of the French Revolution.

The problem with NATO is that Turkey is included and Russia is excluded, going against our pan-Western civilizational interests.

I agree. If NATO is supposed to be a defence alliance, defending the people of our civilization, this is all upside-down.

But NATO has in fact developed into a tool for ideological purposes, for the promotion of Enlightenment ideals which is pushed forward aggressively and arrogantly against what should have been our allies. Serbia is the clearest example. The neocon doctrine, of how two democracies never go to war on each other, is upheld by simply conveniently redefining the terms propagandistically. So NATO made sure to declare Serbia as being non-democratic before bombing them. Nice doctrine, eh? NATO has exactly the same concept of "democratic" as Mona Sahlin. I.e. to be "democratic" is to have the right opinion. Governments having the "wrong" opinion are "un-democratic", no matter if they have stronger popular support (both de facto and by election processes) than the Western leaders themselves.

Admitting Russia and kicking out Turkey is the only way to save NATO. If this is not done, NATO had better be dissolved.

The general approach of Deep Roots and others is backwards. I agree that by the end we would like to see all these countries (give or take a few) working in concert for our common good. But if it's instituted prematurely it will only result in a giga-EU. As TC pointed out, first the countries need to go through a fundamental change (which in several countries will mean revolution).

A strong defence alliance cannot be built on a house of cards. It has to be built from solid backbone. And today that would mean starting building from an Italian-Russian axis. These are the two major countries acting responsibly in the interest of their own people.

How will democracy work out for the West when whites and/or Christians become a minority? About as well as it's worked in Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa, Zimbabwe or Lebanon. We will become certified members of the Third World, our "democratic" credentials notwithstanding. The new First World will consist of China, Japan, Korea and Israel, high-intelligence ethno-nationalist states, while we stagnate in poverty, violence and corruption.

Our civilization isn't based on any particular form of government, but on a common culture based on history, geography and biology. It is race, language and religion that define civilizations, not political ideologies. Europe and her chief offshoots Russia, North America and Australasia represent "white" civilization aka the West.

NATO and the EU should be merged into a loose North Atlantic Union including all Western nations, and only Western nations, to reflect this civilizational reality. At the same time non-Western immigration must be drastically reduced or shut off altogether if whites are to maintain their majority status in their homelands. The West needs more unity and less diversity.

Can't over estimate the importance of Russia. It will have tremendous ramifications now that North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation has been repulsed from Georgia and the Caspian mineral reserves are now in Russia hands and not Turkish Muslim's. Russia is highly cynical and pernicious but at least rational. It is not committed to an eschatological or hubristic "divine" mission, which, despite the unsound methods that were used to crush the Chenchen Rebels Russia is still morally superior to the Mohammed's, the Bill Clinton's, the Dubya's, the McCain's, and the Obama's of this world because the atrocities need only be done once. Putin, by assassinating Anna Politkovskaya is still unconsciously granting that these things that have taken place are wrong. Under Islam, atrocities are the rule, and the films of these atrocities are used to recruit new Muslims.

The "enlightened ones" have been given a bloody nose. Russia is liberated now and no longer a subject for social experiments. There isn't a damn thing the French Illuminati can do about it.

ConSwede,I agree with you that NATO's bombing of Serbia was disgraceful, as was its legitimitization of an independent Kosovo. But NATO is the only pan-Western game in town right now, and if Russia was ever admitted and Turkey expelled, it would truly represent the greater European world.

If the EU can't be destroyed, maybe it can be weakened and expanded to include Russia, Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand. If this doesn't happen, then Europe may eventually merge with the Middle East, North America with Latin America, Russia with Central Asia, and Australasia with Southeast Asia. The West will be divided and conquered if we don't unite together and stop the immigration invasion.

Another common language alternative would be esperanto as it is based on already existing languages, thus being a mixture of other languages would be the most democratic alternative, one that should also could become acceptable by other european nations, even the french. Personally I would prefer klingon though, mostly because it sounds so goddamn funny!

I myself have already said here that the only European Nation I now hope can "save Europe" is Russia as I've said that the only "Western" Nation somewhat sane is Italy (but democracy is ruthless so you never know what will happen). It is very good news indeed.

"The general approach of Deep Roots and others is backwards. (...) if it's instituted prematurely it will only result in a giga-EU. As TC pointed out, first the countries need to go through a fundamental change"

Not exactly. Deep Roots explicity says that the Alliance is to have no impact on the internal affairs of Nations. You will not have an European Union if you're slogan is not "united in diversity".

We just need the Alliance to normalise what is common at the European Civilisational level. To assure non anti-European organisations, to stop massive third world immigration and the like. We do need to implement it. And revolution? Those who do not want it can be despized... And, it has to be implemented from the top down, like NATO in the beggining. No one seemed incomodated to have undemocratic fascist Portugal in NATO right after World War II, why is that?

Not exactly. Deep Roots explicity says that the Alliance is to have no impact on the internal affairs of Nations. You will not have an European Union if you're slogan is not "united in diversity".

As I already stated, we share the same vision of an end result. However, the approach is backwards. If you out all these countries together under the label "Western" or "democratic" the result will be that Italy and Russia (if even admitted) will be drowned in "united in diversity" crap. It will be a giga-EU, believe me. With these hyper-ideologues it DOESN'T MATTER what the constitutional ambitions of an organization are. Set these gremlins loose and pour water on them and they are already out of your control, and will drag the whole thing in their suicidal direction. Look at the EU, look at its constitutional goals, and where did the gremlins drag it? - Eurabia! You can't win against the gremlins, once you have invited them into your house.

Let's make an international organization and invite all these traitors... Does that sound like a recipe for success? To me, it's sounds like a recipe for another UN.

I myself have already said here that the only European Nation I now hope can "save Europe" is Russia

Don't think of Russia in terms of "saving us". They are all busy with their own country, which is exactly why they are heading in the right direction.

Of course, in a worst case scenario, Russia might end up as the last strong nation of white people. And would be the main refuge for individual Westerners in despair. But that would not save the West, only specific individuals. However, it would guarantee that white people do not become extinct on this planet.

But I don't think we will end up in this worst case scenario. So then Russia will mainly serve as the good example. The fine thing with that is that it works equally fine regardless of if you are pro-Russian or anti-Russian.

The pro-Russians would think, they are white, Christian and European like us, and they are showing the way so we should follow their example. If they can do it, we can do it. The power of the example.

The constructive policy of Russia will, in a couple of decades, have as effect that they pass us economically and technologically. This will challenge even the anti-Russians to change, since they wouldn't be able to accept Russia being ahead of America and Western Europe. And this immanent change will be clear even to the most stubborn ones already within a decade (mainly since the West is dropping so fast).

once more, I agree with most of what you say. I just want to explain my views on Russia.

"Don't think of Russia in terms of "saving us". They are all busy with their own country, which is exactly why they are heading in the right direction."

Yes indeed. You see, I am not "hoping" Russia to save Portugal or Sweden, much less France. I am expecting Russia to be just that, a baluarte of European Civilisation. Especially while Europe and the New World are falling apart. In a sense, the Russians, by saving themselves will going, not to "save us" s I said but to save Europe. That is, "our Civilisation" and indirectly "us".And we can even count with an expansion of Russia, an expansion we are already seeing with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And you know we can already smell that same expansion to the Belarus and at least part of Ukraine... who knows also Northern Kazakhistan, etc.And, with a weak Europe, a "Pax" "Slavica(?)" would "save us" also in the sense that the protectorates of Russia into Europe would be able to retain their carachter. How far would the Russian penetration go? I don't know.

And about giving bath to gremlins, I understand what you say but I do not feel the same.We here have a say: "Hope is the last thing to die" and another one: "As long as there is life, there is hope".Call it, cultural incompability! :)

Instead of unreliable Russia - which will exact jizya for every need you will declare, concentrate on Poland and Ukraine.

These countries are big enough to reverse the balance of powers in Europe and will never think of playing some power games to subjugate you.

Concentrate on Poland and Ukraine.

Do not be megalomanic, here you have two commensurable powers fitting into the European dimensions and appreciating every respectful approach from your side.

It is called partnership. Russia is unable to enter into a "partnership". They simply calculate your weakness and display their nihilistic powers.

Rely on your neighbours. Do not enter fantasy world. The herbs for your sick bodies are mostly much closer to you than you think. Your fever makes you already dream of some remote plains and exotic fairies, magic boxes and moonbats.

Ukraine is likely to end up in the abode of Russia, where it naturally belongs.

Which leaves us Poland. So your suggest for us to chew on a herb called Poland for our cure. Who's living in fantasy land really...

We know since before how feverish you are about Austrian style nationalism. Not exactly balanced in your fear and ideological dismissal, comparing ESW's modest tribute to "communist glorification". Your feverish nightmares about Russia has to be read in this same light.

Poland has been more likely to be cut up in pieces between Russia and Austria than to lead Europe. Considering that, you put an excessive amount of hope in Poland. Possibly it could serve as a herb to chew on to keep the fever going.

Actually he is thinking - I think - in a Greater Poland and the Western half of Ukraine and who knows, the Baltic Countries. This Nations may be able to "unite" out of hatred towards Russia. It is plausible. But it would be disgusting in so mamy ways...

But as you said, Poles haven't prove nothing to me. I will not legate such a responsability to the Poles. Russia, on the other way, is a Nation with a somewhat steady History, the History of a great power.

And now that nobody hears me. Would we put the West to be guarded by a non nuclear "super power" like "Polish Commonwealth against Russia part II"?

Poland is on the E.U.It would be between the E.U. and Russia. They would be tear apart just with a blow of any of the "bad wolfes": The one to the West (E.U.) or the one to the East (Russia).

By the way, I've been seing Russian demographic statistics, and Southern Russia is strangely white, especially in the far East...

The Orange Revolution, just like the October Revolution in Russia, was based on external funding, not a groundswell of public support.

Actually, revolutions are usually bad, and the French Revolution was the worst of them all. Lots of hopes for the future are thrown around, people buy into them, and are misled to do rather criminal things. Which in turns sets the seeds for hatred and revenge.

The ultimate example of that, of course, is the Soviet Union. Had Imperial Germany not funded this radical communist by name of Lenin, the Soviet Union probably would never have come into existence. Instead, Russia would have remained a backward rural country for many years still.

"If you want to learn real nationalism before going to Austria visit Ukraine."

If you know a little bit of History, you will know that to say "Austrian Nationalism" is almost as stupid as "White Nationalism".If you know a bit of Austrian History, you will understand that Austria is just Southern Prussia with it's own carachter. There is no Austrian Nation or Prussian Nation. There is a German Nation and there is an Austrian State. In terms of Nationalism, Austria is always a part of the German Nation. I would advise you to google I Reich and Germanic Confederation but it apears that in English it does not mean what I was referring to.

"Meanwhile Kiyiv is a much more pleasant city than Moscow."

I don't know... I suspect I'd prefer Moscow and Saint Petersburg to Kyev or Minsk or Novgorod.But let's talk about Ukraine's most important cities:

Kyev - the craddle of Russia, literally, the State of Rus. Historically the capital of the Ukrainian province of Russia. It got independentist because it was rich and more "European" than the East.

Karkhov - Still presently in the pro Russian part of Ukraine.

Dnepropetrovsk - Still presently in the pro Russian part of Ukraine.

Odessa - Still presently in the pro Russian part of Ukraine.

Donetsk - Still presently in the pro Russian part of Ukraine.

Very interesting. There are no more +1million people cities in Ukraine. Go ask to an average Eastern Ukrainian what language does he speaks at home.Where is the development in Western Ukraine? Why do Western Ukrainians want to adhere to the Socialist European Union? It reminds me of Walonia...

A state with a social contract... and with colour coded "revolutions", as if it was all a Tarrantino movie.

Saakashvili: - Why do I have to be Mr. Pink? Can't I get another colour instead.

- OK, you could be Mr. Brown, maybe that's a colour that would suit you.

And the pro-Russian part of the population in Ukraine is defined out of existence - completely Soviet style. Only the ones once force-fed with Catholicism by the Greater Polish empire counts; only the ones with a preference for EUSSR. The other half of the population simply doesn't exist.

Dear Afonso, I lived in Germany and I have Austrian/German friends. All of them preached to me something very different. For me it is strange, but Austrians are much more anti-German than the Czechs.Only Haider preached something like you many years ago. He had to drop it.

Ukraine is a nation in remaking.They have enough history of their own to find themselves comfortable with it. They swing in a different rhythm already. Even East Ukrainian "oligarchs" do not wish to join your tar baby Russia. They feel safer in U.

I do not think your dialogue with Wikipaedia brings much knowledge.

Poor (often educated) Ukrainians went to Central and Western Europe for jobs (last two decades). They have powerful diaspora in US and Canada. They recharged they batteries and do not have to read collected works of Soros every night.

These people are returning back home simply because they start to earn more at home or the same.. It makes sense to return. The middle class based on independent incomes (not from oily state via feeding hand) is growing.

You complain about MSM, but I guess you have no other sources re Ukraine.

The changes in some parts of the world are fast. Checking Ukraine every year is a must.

Do you know for ex. that educated Indians return home since they can make more money at home than in the West?

You both preach some melting pots while opposing melting pots. Weird.

Ukrainian language was suppressed for long. Now it is spreading again through school education.

Putins drill drifts Russia away from U. as well. Putins silly policy creates a nation with specific obsessions and guilts like East Germany in the past.

Afonso, one more detail: "Prussia" is a deep insult in places like South Germany or Austria.

Esp. the Bavarians are hysterical using this word. Austrians and Prussians fought each other.

Prussia was a unic military project with happy borders with the czarist Russia. The Prussian language (A Baltic one) is extinct for some reasons not difficult to guess. You can have just the Bible in Prussian. Nothing else is left.

Then this strange neogermanic entity started expanding westwards. So you have a plurality of Prussias on the map. Which one do you mean? The Bavarians call everything north of Bayern/Franken "Prussia" with deep hate and disdain.

Prussian society was organized in a way unheard of in "Germany" or Austria (Yunkers/Juncker). Chesterton has some book on web comparing Prussia with islam! And the Prussian constitution was copied in Japan for its military beauty in 19th cent. already!

Even East Ukrainian "oligarchs" do not wish to join your tar baby Russia. They feel safer in U.

You continue to trade in fantasy images. Creating the strawman image of Ukraine merging with Russia, and then continuing about how it's not on the table. Of course it's not on the table! So we all fail to see why you even bring it up. I will leave you to debate with your strawmen. Have fun!

Ukraine is a nation in remaking.

Yes of course it is, but since you, unlike me, fail to follow the news of Ukraine, you've got no idea of what's happening.

You should pay more attention to what's actually happening in Ukraine and less to Soros propaganda about the Orange revolution etc. You should also pay attention to the history of Ukraine, and the sentiments of its people. Your Soros "revolution" is not as beloved as you imagine, very far from it. Instead it's all cracking up into pieces.

Instead it seems more and more that Ukraine will reject the aggressive crackpotism of the West, and has already set course towards the abode of Russia.

Of course to you, who are so bent of shape every time Russia is even mentioned. "Saudi style Russia" as you say, which tells us how preciously little that you know about Islam. You are simply a tone deaf Russophobic on two legs, so nothing you say becomes interesting to the readers.

To you a statement about Ukraine within the abode of Russia becomes unprocessable. To you any touch with Russia becomes identical to throwing oneself into the deepest abyss of hell. But the statement is clear to e.g. South Ossetians and Abkhazians. And to anyone sane enough to see the arrogant, deranged, and aggressive crackpotism of the West. And the the Ukrainians most certainly have, now that the Orange revolution has ran out of fuel.

As has been pointed out by e.g. Homophobic Horse in another thread, Ukraine will be much more free as a nation in the abode of Russia.